MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152934956 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14040171

Modelling Stock Returns and Risk Management in the Shipping Industry

2021· article· en· W3152934956 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sunil Mohanty, Roar Aadland, Sjur Westgaard, Stein Frydenberg, Hilde Lillienskiold, Cecilie Kristensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige UniversitetCity University of New York
KeywordsEconometricsEconomicsVolatility (finance)Quantile regressionQuantilePortfolioStock (firearms)Financial economicsRate of return on a portfolioExchange rateStock exchangeModern portfolio theoryMonetary economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate the impact of macroeconomic risk factors on shipping stock returns, using a quantile regression (QR) model. We regress the excess return of a portfolio for the container, dry bulk, chemical/gas, oil tanker, and diversified shipping sectors on the world market portfolio excess return, volatility index, and changes in the oil price, exchange rate, and interest rate. The sensitivities of stock returns to the risk factors differ across quantiles and shipping segments and are found to be significant for the volatility index, world market portfolio return, exchange rate, and changes in long-term interest rate with variation over quantiles. This provides evidence of asymmetric and heterogeneous dependence between stock returns and certain macroeconomic risk variables. The results of the study also suggest that standard OLS regression is inadequate to uncover the risk-return relation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207